How does "this land is mine now, you can work on it to feed yourself" translate somehow into the opposite of slavery?

It's more like "this land is mine now, we can work out a deal where you tend to it in exchange for an agreed upon cut".

Your original categorization is apt in describing how property taxes and the USDA farm subsidies work, but not free enterprise.

What's the difference in practice apart from the more euphemistic wording?

What's euphemistic about my phrasing? A deal isn't a coercive act. Having a metaphorical gun to one's head to practice labor is.

In your view, is it acceptable that the USDA can dictate the prices of one's crops or put liens on someone's farm land for producing food in manner that isn't produced according to government dictates? Do you think that's the same as coming to an agreement with an equal on certain terms, even if one isn't necessarily happy with all of them?

The difference in practice is that someone can walk away from a deal, but no one can walk away from the government.

> What's euphemistic about my phrasing?

Why would you otherwise feel the need to rephrase it and are still unable to explain the practical difference?

> A deal isn't a coercive act. Having a metaphorical gun to one's head is to practice labor is.

Yes, and for the masses without property? I think I hinted at indirect coercion by "to feed yourself".

and I have no interests in going off into some USDA tangent.

>Why would you otherwise feel the need to rephrase it and are still unable to explain the practical difference?

Because your "definition" implies a lack of agency in an agreement between contracting parties. That is a practical difference and one that was noted in my last sentence which you either didn't read or avoided addressing. To quote: "The difference in practice is that someone can walk away from a deal, but no one can walk away from the government".

>Yes, and for the masses without property? I think I hinted at indirect coercion by "to feed yourself".

I read your statement as implying the usual anti-libertarian argument: property is coercion. I thought that the "to feed yourself" line was a throwaway example of a "limited" freedom "granted" by a property owner made to support your mistaken thesis that a top-down structure exists between individual parties freely engaging in a deal. My approach was to explain how property owners can't grant freedoms, as people have their freedoms or trade them for expedience, and that this top-down structure has, in the past and the present, implicitly and explicitly been practiced by government. I couldn't have read your statement in the way you implied simply because I've never conceived of any such claim being made seriously that choosing to feed oneself, whether one owns property or not, is evidence and a product of force. But now that you've made that clear, I can only say that it's ridiculous.

>and I have no interests in going off into some USDA tangent.

The USDA is not a tangent. It's an example of my point that someone without the ability to decide what do with his own property is better defined as coerced under your original phrasing. It's also a counterpoint to your claim that my point is a euphemistic rephrasing of yours.

Just so I follow, do you recognize the existence indirect coercion by necessities (which very well could be the result of private property creating artificial scarcity) at all?

Because if you do I have no idea how you can come to the idea that one can just "walk away".

> The USDA is not a tangent

It is, you're switching the topic to be about government, and a contemporary setting, instead of continuing on the topic of a private property owner and a hypothetical libertarian society.

Libertarians seem to have a bad habit of using unnecessarily convoluted language.

"Artificial" scarcity, even of so-called necessities, is not indirect coercion so long as it's the choice of the property owner. No one is entitled to the provisions or labor of another because of lack or need. If someone decides it's not in his interest to distribute the fruits of his labor, that's his right.

And yes, people can walk away. Human beings have being walking away for tens of thousands of years. You don't need to read libertarian literature to know the phrase "vote with your feet".

A government with a monopoly on force and enforcement of contracts is as much a feature of a libertarian society as it is in a contemporary one, and so the comparison involving the USDA is germane. The contention is one of degree and nature involvement. A private property owner in a libertarian society must still follow the law to the extent that such laws don't violate his rights.

What untamed land might an intrepid settler go to if they wanted to vote with their feet?

There aren’t any frontiers anymore. Everything is owned

> so long as it's the choice of the property owner.

and there you have it. why libertarianism in it's propertarianism form has nothing to do with freedom and all to do with giving power to the property owners.

> And yes, people can walk away.

You surely can't believe that people can just walk away from their only source of income?

There's always metaphorical gun to everyone's head, in that you die without air, food, and water.

The coercive act is hidden by giving you a choice on who to deal with, but the coercision is still there in that you're forced to make a deal with some property owner. There's no choice to not make a deal with the cartel

Lew Rockwell, chairman of the Mises Institute:

A postscript on voluntary slavery. I am on record on numerous occasions in support of voluntary slavery; some other libertarians support me on this issue as well. See Andersson, 2007; Block, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007A, 2007B, 2009A, 2009B; Lester, 2000; Nozick, 1974, pp. 58, 283, 331; Philmore, 1982; Steiner, 1994, pp. 232.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/walter-e-block/scurrilou...

Voluntary slavery here, means that the ultimate control of your own life includes the right to give it away, sell it, or end it.

It does not mean chattel slavery, or involuntary servitude, or even involuntary government seizures.

And your point is? That it is okay to demand that poor people agree to become slaves in exchange for access to health care for their family?

No- that private property rights are consistent with the libertarian quote above because it's voluntary.

You can argue what truly voluntarily slavery would look like in a modern world, but involuntary chattel slavery is what conflicts with principles of private property.

I'd argue things like athletes signing away future percentages of potential earnings (which was a fairly popular idea until the current NCAA name and likeness rules changed) would be one potential version.

Too late to edit: this is published on Lew Rockwell's website, but the author of this article is Walter E. Block.

the core value of libertarianism is that the strong will dominate the weak, meaning a pure libertarian society would feature widespread slavery as a primary feature.

> the core value of libertarianism is that the strong will dominate the weak, meaning a pure libertarian society would feature widespread slavery as a primary feature.

No it’s not, it’s freedom from being coerced into doing things. Quite literally the opposite of slavery.

Who protects that freedom ? Suppose i own the police, because they are of course privatized and owned by unelected entities (me). I can tell them to arrest you or whatever just because I feel like it. Because there is no state providing justice, if you are not yourself powerful or well liked, I don't see where you'd get any recourse. Someone else can easily give you the only choice of indentured servitude for protection and this is not at all a novel pattern in human societies, it goes on all the time.

> I can tell them to arrest you or whatever just because I feel like it.

No you can’t violate people’s liberty like that. Come on Mike, you’re not that stupid. Don’t attack strawmen.

So Libertarianism is a failed ideal like Communism?

People will do with what they own, wether it be land or its inhabitants.

A core weakness in libertarianism is the cornerstone assumption that everyone will play by the rules, and offers no remedy for those that violate those rules. Which pretty much ignores human behavior going through history (and personal experience, for anyone who has had to do a group assignment).

Yes. Any time there is a power vacuum, there are strongmen waiting to step in and grab that power. As terrible as democracy is, we haven't yet invented anything better to keep the strongmen at bay. So the libertarians will have to live under the rules that society dictates, and here we are.

Where does domination in your example come from exactly? To dominate requires the initiation of force or coercion. Slavery is a primary feature of a state that violates rights, not one that enshrines them.

The only "safe guard" libertarianism brings to the table here is that a person must sign on the dotted line first. Not exactly rock solid when you also allow and encourages the inevitable concentration of wealth through private property at the same time.

Private property IS coercion.

Your safeguard is the choice to act or not act. That's a feature of a free individual. Not a bug. Choices don't become invalid or "wrong" because some people have been wildly successful with theirs while others haven't.

What exactly makes wealth such a sticking point in these arguments against libertarianism? It's not considered wrong to be "too" intelligent, or "too" handsome, or "too" strong. But for some reason using these qualities and abilities to obtain money, supposedly in excess of some "moral number" like $1B, results in being "too" wealthy and thus "wrong". Wealth and private property are a representation of value earned through choices made. I would think that one would want more value in his life not less. In a free market, value is generated by choosing to vote with one's dollar, gold bar, or bitcoin. Private property is NOT coercion. Coercion implies you own nothing and owe everything.

An agreement under coercion, direct or indirect, can't be reduced into some intentionally sterile and neutral "choice" without any context. When someone try to do that, it suggests that one is uncomfortable with that fact and prefer to rationalize it.

Either one has the agency to make and agree to a contract or one does not. There is no in-between. If one holds that every agreement is either directly or indirectly coercive, then we come to the conclusion that no normal human being is ever free. That the only people who truly have choices are clairvoyants and that the rest are as unqualified and naive as children. Obviously, I reject that.

While choice is not without context, that context is individually determined by the one's interests and rational faculties. One doesn't know what he doesn't know. However a person still has the freedom to to take a calculated risk if he deems the payoff worth it. That a person doesn't need to know everything to exercise his agency is what demonstrates choice exists and is not simply the rationalization that you claim it is.

As far as ownership is concerned, why in your view is that direct or indirect coercion? Why is buying or owning something force?

> If one holds that every agreement is either directly or indirectly coercive

You've made weird deductions and extrapolated on top of that then you reject that caricature you've created. That has never been stated.

It would be helpful if we can try to keep this in plain English.

> Either one has the agency to make and agree to a contract or one does not

People can have both agency and still use that agency into making an indirectly coerced "choice". The fact remain that it's coerced, and thus not particularly free as in freedom.

Then you're using a convoluted definition of "coercion"

How are you defining coercion or assessing its presence in a given agreement? Ignorance? Being in want? Genetic differences?

When, in your view, are people not coerced?

I'll give you examples:

Weren't the 19th century coal miners coerced by economic necessity to accept life threateningly bad working conditions?

Weren't the parents of the child laborers coerced by economic necessity?

How is this in any way shape or form even hard to understand and admit to?

> When, in your view, are people not coerced?

When one's general well being and access to necessities are not dependent on accepting the terms of the agreement.